Even before this news, observant listeners had noticed that Limbaugh's show last week was strangely full of the free public service announcements and lacking paying ads.

This is a real testament to the power of decent people to fight against this pollution on the airwaves. Looks like a victory in one battle for the good guys in the war on women, tolerance and decency that's been going on from the right wing. Americans might finally be getting sick and tired of this ugly minority opinion that is shoved in their face every time they turn on the AM radio.

These shows cater to the fringe and try to make it normal to be intolerant, racist, sexist, ignorant and hateful. It has helped keep this minority to feel righteous and entitled to their spite. This glut of shows makes it seem like there are more of them than there are (in fact in most polls, even the majority of Republicans and self-identified conservatives don't agree with the far-right no-nothing positions these guys represent.)

Now how to achieve a similar victory against Fox TV?

busman

handfleisch wrote:

Incredibly awesome:

Quote:

Premiere Networks is circulating a list of 98 advertisers who want to avoid “environments likely to stir negative sentiments.” The list includes carmakers (Ford, GM, Toyota), insurance companies (Allstate, Geico, Prudential, State Farm) and restaurants (McDonald’s, Subway). As you’ll see in the note below, those “environments” go beyond the Rush Limbaugh show..."They’ve specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).

Even before this news, observant listeners had noticed that Limbaugh's show last week was strangely full of the free public service announcements and lacking paying ads.

This is a real testament to the power of decent people to fight against this pollution on the airwaves. Looks like a victory in one battle for the good guys in the war on women, tolerance and decency that's been going on from the right wing. Americans might finally be getting sick and tired of this ugly minority opinion that is shoved in their face every time they turn on the AM radio.

These shows cater to the fringe and try to make it normal to be intolerant, racist, sexist, ignorant and hateful. It has helped keep this minority to feel righteous and entitled to their spite. This glut of shows makes it seem like there are more of them than there are (in fact in most polls, even the majority of Republicans and self-identified conservatives don't agree with the far-right no-nothing positions these guys represent.)

Now how to achieve a similar victory against Fox TV?

I would hope that you would put that same sentiment to MSNBC. Becuase although i would consider myself a Social Libertarian (A Libertarian leaning on the left side), I do not believe in any news-media bias and for you to single out ONLY fox news when MSNBC is just as bad to left makes it sound like you yourself are terribly biased. Just some words of advice that's all.

handfleisch

busman wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

Now how to achieve a similar victory against Fox TV?

I would hope that you would put that same sentiment to MSNBC. Becuase although i would consider myself a Social Libertarian (A Libertarian leaning on the left side), I do not believe in any news-media bias and for you to single out ONLY fox news when MSNBC is just as bad to left makes it sound like you yourself are terribly biased. Just some words of advice that's all.

Thanks Busman. To be honest I don't watch MSNBC, really. In fact I don't have cable (a choice) and only see shows on the internet. I see a clip from Rachel Maddow maybe once a week max. So therefore I don't have much to judge them on.

HOWEVER, I think I would know if they were actually making stuff up, totally lying, repeating talking points directly from political party PR hacks, and race-baiting/encouraging hatred the way FOX does. If you can correct me on that, I would be receptive. But at this point I think it's not accurate to say "MSNBC is just as bad".

busman

handfleisch wrote:

busman wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

Now how to achieve a similar victory against Fox TV?

I would hope that you would put that same sentiment to MSNBC. Becuase although i would consider myself a Social Libertarian (A Libertarian leaning on the left side), I do not believe in any news-media bias and for you to single out ONLY fox news when MSNBC is just as bad to left makes it sound like you yourself are terribly biased. Just some words of advice that's all.

Thanks Busman. To be honest I don't watch MSNBC, really. In fact I don't have cable (a choice) and only see shows on the internet. I see a clip from Rachel Maddow maybe once a week max. So therefore I don't have much to judge them on.

HOWEVER, I think I would know if they were actually making stuff up, totally lying, repeating talking points directly from political party PR hacks, and race-baiting/encouraging hatred the way FOX does. If you can correct me on that, I would be receptive. But at this point I think it's not accurate to say "MSNBC is just as bad".

Ok NOT AS BAD but still PRETTY DAMN BAD haha. They still run massive amounts of horribly timed soundclips and close to never put the full picture out for those to see. And generally the younger populations form their opinions form social interaction and the internet; THE MAJORITY of folks are the not the younger generation, so those are the people that would first need this sort of TV enlightenment out of any group in the population.

And i hope you did not misinterperet my post; I DO NOT support FOX News in the SLIGHTEST, it's just that i don't support any bias in the slightest. Your posts generally don't make me fire up the keyboard, and i was just hoping to shine some light on a topic i don't think gets enough attention.

I want you to realise that while Dem's may not be AS BAD as a lot of repub's in this country they are still realitively similar and both should honestly be held accountable for their actions and deeds. Look at obamacare and read all the by-laws and red-tape that is involved in that bill and tell me a corrupt legislation didn't put that bill together. Its motives and press coverage while altruistic do not even begin to preach the whole picture.

Handfleisch- remember to always follow the money, that's the only truth there truely is. Watch who the funding is being provided from and where that money goes, and who ends up with it, because honestly whether its dem's or repubs, the bills they pass 90% of the time make sure that the money doesn't end up with the middle-class or the poor.

I would like to conclude also with, popular opinion is not always right, it in fact very seldom is, unless it is a humanist issue and can be looked upon objectively and doesn't involve monetary gain for a private party. That's the reason we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy, a direct democracy is a tyranny of the majority.

You have to remember NO-ONE in this political system is really fighting for YOU only you can do that.

busman

And Rush Limbaugh SUCKS btw... hahaha. To get your thread back on topic.

handfleisch

busman wrote:

Ok NOT AS BAD but still PRETTY DAMN BAD haha. They still run massive amounts of horribly timed soundclips and close to never put the full picture out for those to see. And generally the younger populations form their opinions form social interaction and the internet; THE MAJORITY of folks are the not the younger generation, so those are the people that would first need this sort of TV enlightenment out of any group in the population.

And i hope you did not misinterperet my post; I DO NOT support FOX News in the SLIGHTEST, it's just that i don't support any bias in the slightest. Your posts generally don't make me fire up the keyboard, and i was just hoping to shine some light on a topic i don't think gets enough attention.

I want you to realise that while Dem's may not be AS BAD as a lot of repub's in this country they are still realitively similar and both should honestly be held accountable for their actions and deeds. Look at obamacare and read all the by-laws and red-tape that is involved in that bill and tell me a corrupt legislation didn't put that bill together. Its motives and press coverage while altruistic do not even begin to preach the whole picture.

Handfleisch- remember to always follow the money, that's the only truth there truely is. Watch who the funding is being provided from and where that money goes, and who ends up with it, because honestly whether its dem's or repubs, the bills they pass 90% of the time make sure that the money doesn't end up with the middle-class or the poor.

I would like to conclude also with, popular opinion is not always right, it in fact very seldom is, unless it is a humanist issue and can be looked upon objectively and doesn't involve monetary gain for a private party. That's the reason we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy, a direct democracy is a tyranny of the majority.

You have to remember NO-ONE in this political system is really fighting for YOU only you can do that.

I appreciate your points and I understand you are not defending FOX or anything like that.

I want to point out that we seem to be talking about two different things, whether MSNBC is as biased as FOX, and whether MSNBC is as lying, hate-mongering, propagandizing as FOX.

To the first point, I could agree with you and say maybe yes, though as I said I don't watch it that much. They are biased in the other direction from FOX. Though I have seen plenty of MSNBC commentators criticizing Obama for things like not prosecuting the Wall Street Banksters or other times when Obama is too conservative for them.

To the second point, I have to insist that there is no comparison that I know of. MSNBC has not been caught cutting-and-pasting talking points from some Republican planning committee the way FOX has, MSNBC does not just make stuff up like FOX does, and definitely I don't think MSNBC fosters hatred and intolerance the way FOX does. If anybody can show me where I'm wrong, I'd be interested (though one example doesn't prove anything, we are talking about patterns of behavior).

busman

handfleisch wrote:

busman wrote:

Ok NOT AS BAD but still PRETTY DAMN BAD haha. They still run massive amounts of horribly timed soundclips and close to never put the full picture out for those to see. And generally the younger populations form their opinions form social interaction and the internet; THE MAJORITY of folks are the not the younger generation, so those are the people that would first need this sort of TV enlightenment out of any group in the population.

And i hope you did not misinterperet my post; I DO NOT support FOX News in the SLIGHTEST, it's just that i don't support any bias in the slightest. Your posts generally don't make me fire up the keyboard, and i was just hoping to shine some light on a topic i don't think gets enough attention.

I want you to realise that while Dem's may not be AS BAD as a lot of repub's in this country they are still realitively similar and both should honestly be held accountable for their actions and deeds. Look at obamacare and read all the by-laws and red-tape that is involved in that bill and tell me a corrupt legislation didn't put that bill together. Its motives and press coverage while altruistic do not even begin to preach the whole picture.

Handfleisch- remember to always follow the money, that's the only truth there truely is. Watch who the funding is being provided from and where that money goes, and who ends up with it, because honestly whether its dem's or repubs, the bills they pass 90% of the time make sure that the money doesn't end up with the middle-class or the poor.

I would like to conclude also with, popular opinion is not always right, it in fact very seldom is, unless it is a humanist issue and can be looked upon objectively and doesn't involve monetary gain for a private party. That's the reason we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy, a direct democracy is a tyranny of the majority.

You have to remember NO-ONE in this political system is really fighting for YOU only you can do that.

I appreciate your points and I understand you are not defending FOX or anything like that.

I want to point out that we seem to be talking about two different things, whether MSNBC is as biased as FOX, and whether MSNBC is as lying, hate-mongering, propagandizing as FOX.

To the first point, I could agree with you and say maybe yes, though as I said I don't watch it that much. They are biased in the other direction from FOX. Though I have seen plenty of MSNBC commentators criticizing Obama for things like not prosecuting the Wall Street Banksters or other times when Obama is too conservative for them.

To the second point, I have to insist that there is no comparison that I know of. MSNBC has not been caught cutting-and-pasting talking points from some Republican planning committee the way FOX has, MSNBC does not just make stuff up like FOX does, and definitely I don't think MSNBC fosters hatred and intolerance the way FOX does. If anybody can show me where I'm wrong, I'd be interested (though one example doesn't prove anything, we are talking about patterns of behavior).

FOX News is proganda to be sure of it, all im saying is that deomcratic propaganda tends to be a little more subtle is all. FOX is garbage completely agree with you there.

And i wasn't truly comparing the two i was just saying you shouldn't single out one network when all MSM carries a bias. They are ALL run by a few powerful corporations pushing their agenda, just the Dems tend to do it a little more intelligently

And you are right about FOX making stuff up, i have researched this pretty thoroughly and i would have to agree with you there. Its like this say=

You'll never get Handfleisch to admit liberal bias for anything, because he is as biased as you can get!!

But back on topic, that's great the more advertisers that boycott biased and misleading talk show hosts the better! Let's just hope they are doing it for the right reasons.

busman

coolclay wrote:

You'll never get Handfleisch to admit liberal bias for anything, because he is as biased as you can get!!

But back on topic, that's great the more advertisers that boycott biased and misleading talk show hosts the better! Let's just hope they are doing it for the right reasons.

Which if he is percieved as such i would genuinely hope he could see the thoughtfulness of my point and maybe learn to be bias against ALL liars considering a lie spun with a beautiful web or hastely made one is still a lie none the less.

handfleisch

busman wrote:

coolclay wrote:

You'll never get Handfleisch to admit liberal bias for anything, because he is as biased as you can get!!

But back on topic, that's great the more advertisers that boycott biased and misleading talk show hosts the better! Let's just hope they are doing it for the right reasons.

Which if he is percved as such i would genuinely hope he could see the thoughtfulness of my point and maybe learn to be bias against ALL liars considering a lie spun with a beautiful web or hastely made one is still a lie none the less.

I have already agreed to your point in general. If anyone can show a pattern of lies by MSNBC, I would be interested to check it out.

See, what you are up against here are certain internet types who like to say, in effect, "the different major media are all the same so I can retreat to my little personal fantasy belief system with my own obscure sources".

I'm surprised your list of media didn't include NPR. What do you mean by "Independent Sources with fact checking verification"?

edited to make it more charitable

busman

handfleisch wrote:

I have already agreed to your point in general. If anyone can show a pattern of lies by MSNBC, I would be interested to check it out.

See, what you are up against here are certain internet types who like to say, in effect, "the different major media are all the same so I can retreat to my little personal fantasy belief system with my own obscure sources".

I'm surprised your list of media didn't include NPR. What do you mean by "Independent Sources with fact checking verification"?

edited to make it more charitable

??? Huh...?

NPR is decent when they're doing straight news and not opinion pieces.

I ment like small source news operations that are independent of corporate bias and don't have much spin (rare albeit) that you can fact check against other news sources/media to check the validity of the statements. Idependent bloggers (there's a few good ones), independent web news etc.

Also, I don't agree that all media is the same, different spins for different corporations. What i'm simply saying is that if you constantly slant one way and only pick stories supporting your slant while burying far more that don't, you are part of a propaganda machine. I'm not into conspiracies but when 95% of MSM is owned by 3 or 4 major corporations, it would see fit that these companies bury stories that don't suit their agenda and push the ones that do.

All you ever have to do is just follow the money trail to the top dogs and see who's making the calls and see what their agenda is ,and watch as you see the similarities in their news corporations with the stories they choose to report on, more often than not. Of course your going to have stories too big to smother and stories that lean the opposite of what they're trying to sell you, it gives the appearance of objectivity and plays on the masses hope that they're not being lied too.

ocalhoun

busman wrote:

it would see fit that these companies bury stories that don't suit their agenda and push the ones that do.

And that's how most of the bias works... Not outright lies, just being selective about what portions of the truth they publish, and being sure to never publish anything that goes against their agenda.

I recently watched a local news report about a vote to allow marijuana in Washington... and it was ridiculous how biased the news station was...
They never told an outright lie of course, but they gave three different opponents of the measure lots of time to make their different (quite stupid) cases, and only played a quick canned soundbite of a single proponent, not long enough to even make a single complete sentence.

Freedom of the press is very important to democracy... and while we still are largely free from government interference with the press, corporate interference with the press runs rampant, and is ruining the purpose behind having freedom of the press in the first place.

busman

ocalhoun wrote:

busman wrote:

it would see fit that these companies bury stories that don't suit their agenda and push the ones that do.

And that's how most of the bias works... Not outright lies, just being selective about what portions of the truth they publish, and being sure to never publish anything that goes against their agenda.

I recently watched a local news report about a vote to allow marijuana in Washington... and it was ridiculous how biased the news station was...
They never told an outright lie of course, but they gave three different opponents of the measure lots of time to make their different (quite stupid) cases, and only played a quick canned soundbite of a single proponent, not long enough to even make a single complete sentence.

Freedom of the press is very important to democracy... and while we still are largely free from government interference with the press, corporate interference with the press runs rampant, and is ruining the purpose behind having freedom of the press in the first place.

Corporate influence is a horrid thing that infiltrates every aspect of life. Rush Libaugh should have the right to say whatever he wants with no vitriol pointed his way. The first amendment allows this ideally, do i have to disagree? Yes. But the difference is that Limbaugh is one man that i couldnt care less about. If it weren't for corporations supporting this loser he wouldn't have the money to spew such stupidity as thus.

deanhills

busman wrote:

If it weren't for corporations supporting this loser he wouldn't have the money to spew such stupidity as thus.

You've hit the nail right on the head here. One has to go deeper to figure out why he is where he is. If he has a large following and that creates huge numbers in followers, then obviously the large corporations will be sponsoring him. So rather than going for him, one probably has to analyze his followers as it takes Limbaugh type people to create a Limbaugh.

busman

deanhills wrote:

busman wrote:

If it weren't for corporations supporting this loser he wouldn't have the money to spew such stupidity as thus.

You've hit the nail right on the head here. One has to go deeper to figure out why he is where he is. If he has a large following and that creates huge numbers in followers, then obviously the large corporations will be sponsoring him. So rather than going for him, one probably has to analyze his followers as it takes Limbaugh type people to create a Limbaugh.

Too true Dean too true. I just wrote a post on the Are you living your life the way you want to- thread talking about finally being able to live my life the way I NEED to, to be happy and the sad thing is it's all these people like this whom support/supported this horrid man causing me to never think I was an ok person. It's pretty mind numbing to say the least when you realise as long as any man can espouse the views of an extremist position with enough charisma that he/she can garner the respect of their fellow humans. I think that corporations allow this to take hold a lot more than it normally would too due to their giant donations to people like this allowing them to go far further than they normally would.

handfleisch

busman wrote:

I just wrote a post on the Are you living your life the way you want to- thread talking about finally being able to live my life the way I NEED to, to be happy and the sad thing is it's all these people like this whom support/supported this horrid man causing me to never think I was an ok person. It's pretty mind numbing to say the least when you realise as long as any man can espouse the views of an extremist position with enough charisma that he/she can garner the respect of their fellow humans. I think that corporations allow this to take hold a lot more than it normally would too due to their giant donations to people like this allowing them to go far further than they normally would.

Good for you, busman! I agree that it is corporate sponsorship of these awful anti-democratic voices that carry much of the blame. Whenever I turn on Mark Levin, and hear his creepy, whiny voice and his obvious lies and lame propaganda, I can only think "corporate welfare". There's not a chance in hell he could gather much of an audience on his own, and that's true for most of these creeps. (To be fair, at his peak Limbaugh was good at being entertaining while spreading his lies and hate. Now he's also whiny and unhappy all the time, probably due to lack of his drugs and personal issues, and carries on only because of his leftover fan base. But his advertisers are dwindling like he does without viagra!) All across the nation, these negative drags are being paid to spread a message that would otherwise die out, because there aren't really enough people who actually believe in tax breaks for the rich and corporations, in blocking gay marriage, in firing most public employees, the austerity measures and [insert right wing outrage of the day here].

busman

Quote:

Good for you, busman! I agree that it is corporate sponsorship of these awful anti-democratic voices that carry much of the blame. Whenever I turn on Mark Levin, and hear his creepy, whiny voice and his obvious lies and lame propaganda, I can only think "corporate welfare". There's not a chance in hell he could gather much of an audience on his own, and that's true for most of these creeps. (To be fair, at his peak Limbaugh was good at being entertaining while spreading his lies and hate. Now he's also whiny and unhappy all the time, probably due to lack of his drugs and personal issues, and carries on only because of his leftover fan base. But his advertisers are dwindling like he does without viagra!) All across the nation, these negative drags are being paid to spread a message that would otherwise die out, because there aren't really enough people who actually believe in tax breaks for the rich and corporations, in blocking gay marriage, in firing most public employees, the austerity measures and [insert right wing outrage of the day here].

Thank you sir . And ya although austerity has its ideals and they ARE great IDEALS, we don't live in an ideal world and those practices will never be the true solution to humanity's problems economically etc. And yes I TOTALLY agree with you there, that corporations are to blame in pushing this filth down our throats: If I wanted to listen to a horribly bigoted man talk about f*gs and womens' un-rights I would just go down to the local Jehovah Witnesses congregation. Anyway yes the corporations are to blame because they can bump enough money to these looneys to kee them afloat while people slowly forget what non-sense they had spouted awhile back while still having the oppurtunity to garner new followers. I believe in a reasonably regulated free-market system, but the problem is, is when a bully corporation can keep up the fight for far longer than the american public or a small time radio show then in the end they didn't even win by the merit of their product, they only won because of shoddy business practices and constant denial and the random un-hearfelt apology and it's disgusting to say the least.

ocalhoun

busman wrote:

Rush Libaugh should have the right to say whatever he wantswith no vitriol pointed his way. The first amendment allows this ideally, do i have to disagree? Yes.

The first amendment guarantees no such thing.

Quite the opposite, actually, because it guarantees everyone else the right to point vitriol his way if they feel like it.

busman

ocalhoun wrote:

busman wrote:

Rush Libaugh should have the right to say whatever he wantswith no vitriol pointed his way. The first amendment allows this ideally, do i have to disagree? Yes.

The first amendment guarantees no such thing.

Quite the opposite, actually, because it guarantees everyone else the right to point vitriol his way if they feel like it.

Basically what I was trying to say was I will defend his right to say it either way and although may disagree will pull no legal maneuvers trying to cause his right to free speech to lessen any.

gandalfthegrey

Even for Republicans, it appears there is only so much bullshit and hate they can put up with. Fox News manages to make the news and entertainment shows more often than it actually reports it.
No surprise to me that advertisers are pulling out and ratings for their network are slipping.

deanhills

gandalfthegrey wrote:

No surprise to me that advertisers are pulling out and ratings for their network are slipping.

That's good news. But I wonder whether there is not an element of manufacturing the news present, whether news casters want it or not, by adding or omitting some of the pertinent facts. Quality of news from North America, where the media and press are serving ratings more than the truth has always been below par. Fox has just been more ridiculous and hence probably safer than the others because most people take Fox with a grain of salt, whereas they may rely on other media for "the truth". In the end most of the media reporting is really the same, and one has to use more than one of them, as well as compare the news with international news sources to really get to the truth. Small example. When there is a hurricane, statistics of those who passed could vary in hundreds among the news media. During 9/11 broadcasting some of the terrorists who had been shown as guilty, had been unverified. BBC is not perfect, but they are very careful to point out when news has not been verified, whereas this is rarely the case with news from the media in North America. In essence news is used to entertain, more than to inform, whereas in Europe news is more focused to inform than to entertain.

busman

deanhills wrote:

That's good news. But I wonder whether there is not an element of manufacturing the news present, whether news casters want it or not, by adding or omitting some of the pertinent facts. Quality of news from North America, where the media and press are serving ratings more than the truth has always been below par. Fox has just been more ridiculous and hence probably safer than the others because most people take Fox with a grain of salt, whereas they may rely on other media for "the truth". In the end most of the media reporting is really the same, and one has to use more than one of them, as well as compare the news with international news sources to really get to the truth. Small example. When there is a hurricane, statistics of those who passed could vary in hundreds among the news media. During 9/11 broadcasting some of the terrorists who had been shown as guilty, had been unverified. BBC is not perfect, but they are very careful to point out when news has not been verified, whereas this is rarely the case with news from the media in North America. In essence news is used to entertain, more than to inform, whereas in Europe news is more focused to inform than to entertain.

Hence why I don't watch any news anymore and rarely listen to NPR etc here anymore haha. Pathetic dimwits just trying to make a quick buck selling you garbage.

handfleisch

More evidence of the "Corporate Welfare" that pays right wing talk show hosts even when they lose money, which would mean that this right-wing message is actually propaganda being pushed for political (and not profit) reasons. This article points out that Glenn Beck's show loses money but he just got a new multimillion dollar contract. Limbaugh's show is also stagnant but he was also given a big raise. They both work for Clear Channel, which is owned by BAIN Capital (Romney's old vulture-capital company that still pays him dividends)! The article points out that Limbaugh and Beck get paid the same as Jay Leno and David Letterman, even though Leno and Letterman actually bring in profits (half a billion).

If true, it means the US airwaves are being flooded with a right wing message not because "it sells" or it's just business, but specifically to pollute the political debate and brainwash the American people.

There aren't many syndicated talk show hosts who get kicked off the air in the most important radio market in the country and then land a big raise. But Glenn Beck just did.

ocalhoun

handfleisch wrote:

which would mean that this right-wing message is actually propaganda

If anybody here didn't already know that, raise your hand.

handfleisch

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

which would mean that this right-wing message is actually propaganda

If anybody here didn't already know that, raise your hand.

Um, that would be you with your hand up. You always maintain that these shows are just motivated by profit.

ocalhoun

handfleisch wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

which would mean that this right-wing message is actually propaganda

If anybody here didn't already know that, raise your hand.

Um, that would be you with your hand up. You always maintain that these shows are just motivated by profit.

The network is motivated by profit. how they get that profit may not be by actually making the shows profitable.

handfleisch

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

which would mean that this right-wing message is actually propaganda

If anybody here didn't already know that, raise your hand.

Um, that would be you with your hand up. You always maintain that these shows are just motivated by profit.

The network is motivated by profit. how they get that profit may not be by actually making the shows profitable.

is that supposed to make sense?

ocalhoun

handfleisch wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

which would mean that this right-wing message is actually propaganda

If anybody here didn't already know that, raise your hand.

Um, that would be you with your hand up. You always maintain that these shows are just motivated by profit.

The network is motivated by profit. how they get that profit may not be by actually making the shows profitable.

is that supposed to make sense?

Perhaps advertisers are not their only income source?

busman

ocalhoun wrote:

The network is motivated by profit. how they get that profit may not be by actually making the shows profitable.

Perhaps advertisers are not their only income source?

This is a very good question... I am slightly befuddled

handfleisch

busman wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:

The network is motivated by profit. how they get that profit may not be by actually making the shows profitable.

Perhaps advertisers are not their only income source?

This is a very good question... I am slightly befuddled :(

Maybe he's talking about wingnut welfare, the phenomenon of right wing commentators getting free money from think tanks and radio networks backed by giant corporations and the megarich like the Koch brothers. Maybe the radio stations "profit" from money from these right wing sources in order to keep the far-right message on the air, even if the shows don't pay for themselves with ad revenue. But I don't see how this can be called profit, really, and so far I haven't seen any hard evidence that this phenomenon is directly at work with radio stations (though I suspect so).

busman

handfleisch wrote:

Maybe he's talking about wingnut welfare, the phenomenon of right wing commentators getting free money from think tanks and radio networks backed by giant corporations and the megarich like the Koch brothers. Maybe the radio stations "profit" from money from these right wing sources in order to keep the far-right message on the air, even if the shows don't pay for themselves with ad revenue. But I don't see how this can be called profit, really, and so far I haven't seen any hard evidence that this phenomenon is directly at work with radio stations (though I suspect so).

That would be something very interesting to research

handfleisch

busman wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

Maybe he's talking about wingnut welfare, the phenomenon of right wing commentators getting free money from think tanks and radio networks backed by giant corporations and the megarich like the Koch brothers. Maybe the radio stations "profit" from money from these right wing sources in order to keep the far-right message on the air, even if the shows don't pay for themselves with ad revenue. But I don't see how this can be called profit, really, and so far I haven't seen any hard evidence that this phenomenon is directly at work with radio stations (though I suspect so).

In search of donations and influence, the three prominent conservative groups are paying hefty sponsorship fees to the popular talk show hosts. Those fees buy them a variety of promotional tie-ins, as well as regular on-air plugs – praising or sometimes defending the groups, while urging listeners to donate – often woven seamlessly into programming in ways that do not seem like paid advertising.

“The point that people don’t realize,” said Michael Harrison, founder and publisher of the talk media trade publication TALKERS Magazine, “is that (big time political talk show hosts) are radio personalities – they are in the same business that people like Casey Kasem are in – and what they do is no different than people who broadcast from used car lots or restaurants or who endorse the local roofer or gardener.”

The Heritage Foundation pays about $2 million to sponsor Limbaugh’s show and about $1.3 million to do the same with Hannity’s – and considers it money well spent.

So this hate-talk and lies, which lose money for the radio station, are being propped up by these right wing organizations.

The Reagan/Bush administration ended the FCC's Fairness Doctrine in 1986, and the next year saw Rush Limbaugh appear in over 50 major markets across America - with no sponsors. The myth believed by his listeners is that Americans just so loved Rush and his philosophy that those stations that altruistically carried his show quickly found sponsors. The liberal myth is that the way to replicate Limbaugh's success is to re-invent a radio network like ABC or Premiere but that carries liberals, and stations in major markets will flock to pick up the programming.

But making something like the Rush phenomenon happen isn't about networks or stations or even about philosophy: It's about quality programming, a good business strategy, and lots of cash. Particularly the cash.

Christian broadcasters have known this equation for decades. Many radio stations will sell "block time" - entire hours - for a bit less than they'd normally get if they had just sold all the ads on an existing show. The purchaser gets not only all the commercial minutes, but the entire hour to do whatever they want with. Christian broadcasters use that hour to evangelize and beg for money, and if they get more cash from their donors than the hour cost, they keep their show on the air on that station and grow to the next.

One step down are light sponsorships - where advertisers (often Bible publishers) buy one or a few "seed" ads on a local station, so as soon as the program starts on the station, management knows its downside is limited.

Talk radio has a similar past - and present.

Well-funded syndicates get together and buy block time, put a conservative host on the air, and then find sponsors to pay for it. If the income from the sponsors exceeds the cost of buying the block time, they make a healthy profit. If not, the message still gets spread, Republicans get elected, and the interests of the investors are furthered.

Less well financed shows find political candidates or sympathetic companies to advertise locally to encourage stations to pick up a show. (It's no coincidence that Limbaugh's show debuted just as the '88 election cycle was beginning.)

While none of Limbaugh's original business partners has ever gone public with the details of what it cost to first get him on the air, it is public knowledge that syndicators of some of the biggest names in conservative talk radio today are still, 15 years after Limbaugh's national debut, buying block airtime in the tightest major markets and working to bring in local sponsors in other markets.

The result of conservatives buying their way into our airwaves has been a conservative transformation in average Americans' political viewpoints. Soccer Moms and NASCAR Dads tune in to coast-to-coast, dawn-to-midnight conservative talk radio, and many have come to believe the right's slogans and myths.

Thus, traditional American values of community and compassion have been replaced with the conservative notions that greed is good and corporations can better administer a democracy than a freely elected government. A vast national right-wing echo chamber across the AM dial has propelled conservative Republican candidates into office, led us into two wars in two years, and succeeded in burying the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration while continuing to blame all things bad on Bill Clinton.

The Reagan/Bush administration ended the FCC's Fairness Doctrine in 1986, and the next year saw Rush Limbaugh appear in over 50 major markets across America - with no sponsors. The myth believed by his listeners is that Americans just so loved Rush and his philosophy that those stations that altruistically carried his show quickly found sponsors. The liberal myth is that the way to replicate Limbaugh's success is to re-invent a radio network like ABC or Premiere but that carries liberals, and stations in major markets will flock to pick up the programming.

But making something like the Rush phenomenon happen isn't about networks or stations or even about philosophy: It's about quality programming, a good business strategy, and lots of cash. Particularly the cash.

Christian broadcasters have known this equation for decades. Many radio stations will sell "block time" - entire hours - for a bit less than they'd normally get if they had just sold all the ads on an existing show. The purchaser gets not only all the commercial minutes, but the entire hour to do whatever they want with. Christian broadcasters use that hour to evangelize and beg for money, and if they get more cash from their donors than the hour cost, they keep their show on the air on that station and grow to the next.

One step down are light sponsorships - where advertisers (often Bible publishers) buy one or a few "seed" ads on a local station, so as soon as the program starts on the station, management knows its downside is limited.

Talk radio has a similar past - and present.

Well-funded syndicates get together and buy block time, put a conservative host on the air, and then find sponsors to pay for it. If the income from the sponsors exceeds the cost of buying the block time, they make a healthy profit. If not, the message still gets spread, Republicans get elected, and the interests of the investors are furthered.

Less well financed shows find political candidates or sympathetic companies to advertise locally to encourage stations to pick up a show. (It's no coincidence that Limbaugh's show debuted just as the '88 election cycle was beginning.)

While none of Limbaugh's original business partners has ever gone public with the details of what it cost to first get him on the air, it is public knowledge that syndicators of some of the biggest names in conservative talk radio today are still, 15 years after Limbaugh's national debut, buying block airtime in the tightest major markets and working to bring in local sponsors in other markets.

The result of conservatives buying their way into our airwaves has been a conservative transformation in average Americans' political viewpoints. Soccer Moms and NASCAR Dads tune in to coast-to-coast, dawn-to-midnight conservative talk radio, and many have come to believe the right's slogans and myths.

Thus, traditional American values of community and compassion have been replaced with the conservative notions that greed is good and corporations can better administer a democracy than a freely elected government. A vast national right-wing echo chamber across the AM dial has propelled conservative Republican candidates into office, led us into two wars in two years, and succeeded in burying the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration while continuing to blame all things bad on Bill Clinton.